Article

2004-11-21 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Grunter 2004-11-21 00:37|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 roflmao

Cya!

Posted by Mac Suirtain 2004-11-21 1:07:06 AM|| 2004-11-21 1:07:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 What's that giant flushing sound I hear? Is that Goss at the lever?

Posted by Capt America 2004-11-21 1:18:55 AM|| 2004-11-21 1:18:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#3
.... they gave me carte blanche to talk to the media," Scheuer said. .... Scheuer's stunning admission--that CIA officials actively promoted a book ....

The author of the article apparently doesn't know what the expression carte blanche means. It does not mean "actively promoted." Doesn't The Weekly Standard have an editor?
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-21 1:44:36 AM|| 2004-11-21 1:44:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 think, mike, think. CIA analysts are not permitted to push their views in the newsmedia, either via books or interviews. The senior officials who gave Scheuer free rein to do so in violation of CIA policy (and perhaps the law) were of course seeking, along with Scheuer, to promote the views in his book.

That's the entire point of this scandal. The CIA is a dysfunctional organization that cannot even abide its most crucial operating restrictions.

Posted by lex 2004-11-21 1:57:47 AM|| 2004-11-21 1:57:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Both Harlow and Tenet should be interrogated by senior members of the Senate, in order to determine if a trial for treason is warranted.

What I really mean is: they should both be tried for treason.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2004-11-21 6:27:18 AM|| [http://radio.weblogs.com/0103811/categories/currentEvents/] 2004-11-21 6:27:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Everyone who works for the intel agencies signs a non-disclosure agreement. Most people take it seriously. It's to prevent crap like this.

Having the intel agencies even remotely involved in politix is horribly dangerous, in the same category as having the military involved in politix. We don't even want a toe in that water.

Posted by Fred 2004-11-21 6:58:33 AM|| 2004-11-21 6:58:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#7
The theme of this nonsense article is that former CIA Director actively promoted Scheuer's book as long as Scheuer limited his attacks to George W. Bush and did not include attacks on the CIA. The evidence for the theme is non-existent.

This is like Claudia Rosett's non-evidence insinuations that Kofi Annan somehow personally profited from the Food-for-Oil Program through his son Kojo Annan. It's a vicious attack on a prominent person using no evidence whatsoever.

Here's a passage from the article:
Scheuer said, "As long as the book was being used to bash the president, they gave me carte blanche to talk to the media," Scheuer said. When Scheuer started attacking the CIA in interviews along with the president, agency brass forbade him from talking to the media.

From this whisp the author concocts a conclustion that the CIA leadership, specifically George Tenet, was actively promoting Scheuer's book as long as it attacked George W. Bush.

Excuse me? What? Whence appears that surprising conclusion? Not from any evidence at all. (It's like: Kojo worked for Cotecna, which had a UN contract, so therefore Kofi Annan made huge profits from the Food-for-Oil Program.)

And why should we accept Scheuer's characterization of the CIA's attitude as carte blanche. I imagine that the CIA's attitude was that it could do little but watch passively as this disgruntled analyst exercised his rights to publish and speak -- and to commit career suicide. Publicly criticizing President Bush was bad enough; publicly criticizing the CIA leadership was Scheuer's final step off the cliff.

I do admit, though, that the nonsensical insinuation that George Tenet "actively promoted" Scheuer's attacks against Bush will get a lot more attention for The Weekly Standard than a sensible analysis.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-21 10:56:23 AM|| 2004-11-21 10:56:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Mike - you pick between lines to conjure up a lame excuse to defend your beloved int'l institutions. I won't argue with you - better and more logical debate I get with my cat. Nonsense article? Non-evidence insinuations? Pull your head from Kofi's ass

Posted by Frank G 2004-11-21 11:02:02 AM|| 2004-11-21 11:02:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 The article claimed the Agency was promoting the book by letting journalists know about it and encouraging interviews. They certainly didn't DISCOURAGE them and as I recall a dozen or more articles and TV slots appeared pretty much all at once. That didn't just happen at random.

Moreover, Mike fails to acknowledge the last sentence in the article. Tenet did and said nothing to stop the publication of the books and the news interviews. Bad in general, totally unacceptable during an election season. He could scarcely fail to know about them -- they were A topics for weeks.

His silence on the issue is all anyone needs to know about his intentions.

Posted by rkb 2004-11-21 11:13:54 AM|| 2004-11-21 11:13:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 This is like Claudia Rosett's non-evidence insinuations that Kofi Annan somehow personally profited from the Food-for-Oil Program through his son Kojo Annan. It's a vicious attack on a prominent person using no evidence whatsoever.

When you can't win the argument, change the subject. Nice try, thanks for playing...

Posted by Raj 2004-11-21 11:25:41 AM|| 2004-11-21 11:25:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#11
Re #10 (Raj): When you can't win the argument ... Nice try

Read this and then remind me why Claudia Rosett's evidence is so compelling.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-21 12:36:24 PM|| 2004-11-21 12:36:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#12
Re #9 (rkb): The article claimed the Agency was promoting the book by letting journalists know about it and encouraging interviews.

The article doesn't make either claim. The article claims that the normal procedure was that CIA officials who publish their works have to arrange any subsequent interviews through the CIA Public Affairs office. This procedure was changed in this particular case because the book had become extraordinarily publicized. The CIA didn't publicize the book; the publisher and subsequently the media publicized it. So many interview requests flooded the Public Affairs office that the Public Affairs office decided that this loose cannon, who obviously was committing career suicide, could arrange his own interviews, as long as he informed the Public Affairs office promptly.

From this situation, the conclusion is concocted that George Tenet was actively promoting the book, as long as Scheuer criticized only President Bush.

They certainly didn't DISCOURAGE them and as I recall a dozen or more articles and TV slots appeared pretty much all at once. That didn't just happen at random. .... Tenet did and said nothing to stop the publication of the books and the news interviews. ....

President Bush didn't do anything to stop the publications and interviews either. Does that mean that President Bush was actively promoting the book.

Did you, rkb, personally do anything to stop the publications and interviews? Maybe you were actively promoting the book?

Another explanation is that there was nothing George Tenet could do to stop Scheuer.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-21 12:51:00 PM|| 2004-11-21 12:51:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Stay away from me!

Posted by A Straw 2004-11-21 1:13:35 PM|| 2004-11-21 1:13:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Scheuer told reporters on Friday that, traditionally, he would have to arrange interviews through the CIA public affairs office. Each interview would have to be cleared before
Scheuer was allowed to talk. With Imperial Hubris, however, that wasn't the case. The book's advance publicity had hyped the fact that a CIA officer was anonymously breaking with the administration's anti-terror strategy. Interview requests flooded in. But Scheuer said that Harlow told him, "We're giving you carte blanche." Harlow's condition? Scheuer was supposed to let the public affairs office know who he talked to--after the interview(s) had taken place

Oh come on, Mike. I'm not the direct supervisor of Harlow -- and neither is Bush.

Harlow directly reported to Tenet -- who had, among other things, statutory responsibility for secrecy at the Agency. There was PLENTY Tenet could have done.

And yes, I have known over the years a few people who worked at Langley.

Posted by rkb 2004-11-21 4:36:51 PM|| 2004-11-21 4:36:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#15
Re #14 (rkb): There was PLENTY Tenet could have done.

Scheuer acted above-board. He intended to publish his book with CIA permission, and he knew the rules, so he wrote his book so that it complied with the rules. Then Scheuer submitted his manuscript for a CIA security review according to the rules. And, according to the CIA's own rules, the CIA had to permit the publication.

Tenet had the option to simply fire Scheuer, because the CIA can fire its employees without justification. That option, however, might open other cans of worms, such as making a martyr out of Scheuer and perversely increasing the attention his book would receive.

Scheuer placed the CIA leadership into a complicated situation that was not easy to handle. In the end, though, Scheuer left the CIA.

What damage did Scheuer's book do to US security? None. The evidence for that conclusion is that the CIA completed a security review and approved the book's publication.

As a result of the book's publication, the whole world outside the USA now knows that former CIA analyst Scheuer is critical of US policy related to the War on Terrorism. So what?

Because of that, people here argue, Goss is now supposed to fire all the CIA employees who were involved in the security review of the book for its publication. Yeah, sure.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-21 6:37:19 PM|| 2004-11-21 6:37:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 And, according to the CIA's own rules, the CIA had to permit the publication

Nope, they most certainly did not. And you do keep dancing around the fact that a critical security agency was deeply politicized in a way that is dangerous for us over time.

Posted by rkb 2004-11-21 7:55:57 PM|| 2004-11-21 7:55:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Why is MS obsessed with white-washing the UN oil-for-money-for-terrorism, bribery- and genocide-tolerant Annan, and now CIA traitors?

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2004-11-22 12:00:07 AM|| [http://radio.weblogs.com/0103811/categories/currentEvents/] 2004-11-22 12:00:07 AM|| Front Page Top

00:00 Kalle (kafir forever)
23:58 Mike Sylwester
23:50 trailing wife
23:49 Red Lief
23:44 trailing wife
23:43 Mike Sylwester
23:38 BillH
23:35 RWV
23:30 PBMcL
23:19 RWV
23:17 mhw
23:03 muck4doo
22:57 JosephMendiola
22:52 anonymous2u
22:47 RWV
22:47 Justrand
22:38 JosephMendiola
22:33 JosephMendiola
22:02 lex
21:52 True German Ally
21:50 Frank G
21:48 mhw
21:40 SC88
21:31 CornÃ®liÃ«s